GuardianGrey

I feel that they have that ability, though it's not shown in a VF, but a VB. Though I could be totally wrong.

The VB-6 has to convert a wing into a leg & back, which has to be no small feat do to the weight involved.

Getting that servo to be aerodynamic enough for flight would need a morphing surface system, I feel.

Okay, Seto Kaiba, I understand that V-Max articles may have drawn conclusions with incomplete data. Though unless you have read them in whole yourself, please don't base your opinion of their articles on my presentation from.

On the Macross timelines (in Vol.2, No.6; 1995);

Macross has two timelines: the older Macross II timeline starts with the AD2009 story shared by the TV series and movie (Do You Remember Love?), followed by Macross Flashback 2012 OVA (AD2012), the Macross 2036 video game (AD2036) and the Macross II OVA series (AD2092). The more recent timeline also includes the shared TV and movie story and Flashback 2012, but then proceeds with Macross Plus (AD2040) and Macross 7 (AD2045). The two timelines are mutually exclusive (refer to the Macross Timeline article which appeared last issue).

When I first seen the VF-4 airframe, I thought there was no way that it could transform (too use to the VF-1 and Transformers series variable form). I was wrong, and will admit it.

I feel that Benjamin Wright (writer of the articles) may have thought the same (and did question it in the article).

On the mysterious VF-5, I personally feel that the VA-3M variant does the job with water landings well. With said, I also feel the VA-3M either replaced the VF-5, or is the full realization there of.

On that nuclear turbine Seto Kaiba mentioned, I agree that it does seem like the image of the FF-2001 that i posted earlier when talking about that subject. Thank you for that, Seto.

Okay, Seto Kaiba, I see that I had a misunderstanding about the SWAG armor & engine output... Though still, WTF?

ECA was introduced into the continuum with Macross Zero. And the issue of not having full-time/powered SWAG armor is not resolved until 50 years later with either multiple engines, or an expensive system, is used?

What, were all the R&D techs chasing an idol's skirt or something?

(Isamu to Yang; "Well, her virginity would be hard to get.")

Same though, but only 20 years of development, on the IVCS/ISC system.

I believe the FAST/Super-part system is supposed to (usually) optimize VF for space, and I notice that the VF-25 does not (seem to) have verniers on the wings. So I wondered why they were not just folded back in/under the booster packs?

Lack of evidence is not proof of the fact, in and of itself, Seto Kiaba.

The V-Max article was also trying to stick with information/material that was cannon to the separate series at that time (of Macross & Macross II in 1995).

Since I have not seen Flashback 2012, I know not if the VF-4 transformed in. With the lack of any information saying that it did so, I am concluding it did not.

The VF-4's Siren series (1992) was mentioned in the V-Max article, though it was considered a part of the Macross II continuum and non-cannon of Macross main series (in 1995). As such, there would have been no cannon artwork for the VF-4 transformations at that time.

The VF-5000 has a similar situation, for I have no access to a copy of the publication that it first appeared in (1995). Since there has been no information forthcoming that more than its fighter-mode was printed at that time, then there was no evidence that it was a truly variable unit (in 1995).

Since we are on the subject only fighter-mode art shown, the YF-24 was that way as well originally, though (relatively quickly) a model/toy came out giving all a visual of the transformed unit.

There is line-art for two(2) non-variable units in the Macross continuum cannon that have the VF designation, the VF-X & the VF-X-4.

Sure, it could be argued that they were only proof-of-concept units, though why give a VF-X (or XVF) designation to a non-transformation unit that might not get more budgeting for?

The same "wrong" designation could be argued that many VF units of the teen numbers should have been classed as XVF or YF because they were system testbed units.

There is also no evidence that they were truly variable units, other than the VF designation. Which makes little sense because most were about G compensation or flight characteristics, that seems to be the issue most prominent (& best evaluated) in fighter-mode.

As commented earlier, reality also has this issue;

The F-107A was a test unit that only three(3) were built, though never classified as YF or XF by the USAF.

The F-117 has never (to my knowledge) carried any aerial defensive/offensive ordnance, so why would it be classed as a fighter? Almost all reported missions were bombing runs with that unit.

AV-6 Kestril was a prototype thrust vectoring unit that the USMC & BAE testing that lead to Harrier jet being adopted by the USMC & RAF, though it got no Y.

The V-Max articles in Vol.2 No.6 & 7 on the two Macross timelines was good, in 1995. Though, things have greatly changed and expanded in the twenty years since they were published. Even if the information is dated & considered incorrect now, back then it was a rare resource for anime fans in the U.S. that could not read Japanese at that time.

Okay, Seto Kaiba, though pardon me as I laugh... at me making a total @$$ of myself... or making you eat crow...

Just a thought, the F-117 (to my knowledge) never had any combat capabilities to facilitate an offensive/defensive role against other aerial units, yet it was still designated as a Fighter.

First off, the V-Max article is two decades old...

... I know that the VF-5000 had debuted (by, I believe, your information at Macross Mecha Manual) in This is Animation Special Macross Plus on pg. 68 in 1995.

So both were at about the same time; so does that publication show all three modes of the VF-5000 craft? &/Or describe the battriod/GERWALK statistics?

If it only describes the fighter-mode only, at that time, then the assumption of the VF-5000 is a non-variable fighter has founding in the lack of evidence to the contrary.

I have not seen the Flashback 2012 which was released in 1987 (5 year anniversary)...

... Did the VF-4 transform any in the animation? Did line-art from the production at that time have any additional Modes? Was there any detailed descriptions of any other modes?

If there was a lack of evidence up until the Macross M3 game release (2001), then it would seem that it too would been originally described as a non-transformable fighter.

I still would have called the VF-5000 (and VF-5) a VF based (loosely) on it having VF-technologies & a VG wing structure (& the VF-5 possible due to doubling as a hydrofoil craft).

The fact the VF-4, VF-5 & VF-5000 were all manned Fighters that could operate in Variable environments could also 'qualify' as VF units, though who know at that time (1995).

I do not think Koji Goto* at that time would have overlooked such details in giving base information out to the wirters, if they existed at all prior to the time of publication.

------------------------------

On my active stealth in real life. the wing would have been actively transmitting EM field to ionize the air around the craft to help reduce drag. The ionized air then would disrupt the radar wave trying to reflect off the craft (by distorting them in & out of the field). I though have not heard of said system actively used, though there are registered patents for.

(* = Japanese translator for R Talsorian Games, worked with other writers for V-Max, the DBZ & BGC projects and the GUNDAM license)

Here is a twisted thought, Andras, the "new" ports on the aft/arm missile bays are blocked with the transformation to GEARWALK/Battroid, so the front ports (that you believed were beam weapons) are the new release area for...

------------------------------

I see your point on both the one engine & the SV-51 upgrade, Valkyrie Driver.

I was thinking that it would not be fully possible for the 2038 setting, because the Heavy quantum beam weapon would not be developed yet.

The GU-XS-06 (usually with the VF-11C APS-11) if usable in all modes would be a statement, and ratio size to the SV-51 like the VF-27's BGP-01B (I can't get the 'special' characters).

The engines, which at that point in time could do SWAG full time, though not enough for an all-time full-frame PPBS.

I think the YF-30 has full time on both systems (SWAG & full-frame PPBS) as well as a Heavy Quantum on two engines, so it is not impossible.
It would almost be offensively like the YF-27-5, though in a (IMHO) nicer looking airframe.

Personal feeling; the SV-51 was the superior VF in Macross Zero, though was flown by the losing side of the war.

I do not mean to laugh, Kelsain, though I think you might be wrong on something.

I can not find any information that the VF-5 had any alternate mode, and was just a fighter.

To be factual, in V-Max; Vol.2 No.6, pg.22-3 "The Evolution of the Variable Fighter" by Benjamin L Wright (1995), the entry for about read:

VF-5000 (and VF-5)

Designed by Shinsei Industries in 2009 as a non-transformable, anti-Bodolza atmospheric fighter. Equipped with an on-board radar suppression system and advanced avionics, a space combat variant (the VF-5) partially replaced the VF-4 in 2020.

In 1997, with the release of Macross Dynamite 7; the VF-5000G Star Mirage was a three-mode variable fighter, though no update on the VF-5.

That is like the rewrite of the VF-4, which originally was also a non-transformable fighter, in which its appearance (as the VF-4G) in Macross M3 (Video Game 2001) was the first time anyone seen any transformation there of. To quote from the V-Max article's there on:

VF-4 "Lightning III"

This non-variable fighter replaced the VF-1 for space combat in 2012. it weighed 13.95 tons, with 28 tons of engine power. Armed with dual beam guns and 12 air-to air missiles. No variants except for the early VF-X-4, which had 35% parts commonality with the VF-1. A variable geometry version of the VF-4 Lightning III, the VF-14, was captured by the Varauta in Macross 7. The FZ-109A and the FZ-109F "Elgerzorene" are "alienized" VF-14 versions, converted much like their micronized Zentaedi pilots.

--------------- Semi-Back to Topic ---------------

Though back to a line in the VF-5000 (and VF-5) entry, "Equipped with on-board radar-suppression system..." Could that be a note to an early version of the YF-19 & YF-21 Active Stealth systems?

I have seen actual patents (I confirmed they were real, considering fanatic UFOlogists usually sight them) for energy-field generation systems that are suppose to help ionize the air to help it flow over the wing & the distortion of radar as a potential side effect. If the distortion does happen, then it and ECM could function like Active Stealth.

Which brings me to odd logic Macross Continuum questions;

The VF-0 Phoenix had both SWAG armor & Active Stealth, & it is noted that the SWAG was to be on all VFs, does that mean that all VF (continuing with the VF-1) had an Active Stealth Systems?

Was the Active Stealth a byproduct of the SWAG armor being de-Energized?
(Remembering that the VF-0 & other first generation VFs SWAG armor was not active in fighter-mode due to power limitations of their turbines)

If all the VFs already had Active Stealth, why was it such a big deal for the Super Nova candidates to have it?

Do Destriods have SWAG armor that is active all the time?

I seen two different intakes for the F-16LOAN, Valkyrie Driver, the traditional & the DSI (Divertless Supersonic Intake) which Boeing was using tech data of for the X-35.
I am assuming the DSI is what you are referring to; though with the nose-down transformation like the VF-1/11/22, would that not pinch/cut off intake to the turbine?

I would think a divided intake like the F-20/35/104/106 would be easier.

------------------------------

If you, Valkyrie Driver, are referring to as a 2038 AVF Update Candidate version of the SV-51;
I feel the frame could be remade to handle the newer turbines & FCS updated for the ordnance loads, though the big anti-ship gun might be pushing the tech of the era.

Now, 2055+, with the SV-52 (a rebuilt SV-51 to AVF specifications) from Macross R, I say it is more plausible.

With the Heavy Quantum Beam gunpod, I would suggest a set of fixed boosters like the SV-51 'Booster' (though intergraded into the wings) for higher power output for the beam cannon.

Heck, the SV-51 with boosters looks like she could go orbital back then... & the purple on the nose almost look like fold crystals..

------------------------------

Since the SW-XAII is a non-cannon design, Andras, you won't find much. though this is my crack a the weapons;

• Dual Head Lasers (like VF-1D/J, VF-17D, VF-25F)
• Gunpod (other than the VF-4, which it is optional, all VF have at least one)
• internal missile bay in ventral-side fuselage/lower-legs (Like the VF-19P)
• Internal missile bay in ventral-aft fuselage/ arms (dissimilar to the VF-5000)
• Possible beam system (pointing aft in fighter mode/ Arms in GREWALK/Battriod)

The big bore Laser is the only issue I have, due to the ventral view.

The Missile ports in the Arms are farther back on the body than they should which would either mean it is a fluke, or the beam weapons at not internal and can not be used.

If they are rear facing it would be like the head lasers are on a lot of other VF units, to discourage tailing & be an anti-missile system.

I will have to agree with Phyrox on this, Valkyrie Driver. & reason I brought up the Sea Dart was that the ability to land a VF on water(worlds) was the idea for the VF-5.

Both the Convair YF-2Y & the Saunders-Roe SR.A/1 did crash before their military Brass & press, they were sound designs;

• The YF-7A crash was due to bulkhead's fatigue from going supersonic then landing 'hot' (faster than it should) on the water (which caused the bulkhead to fail)
• The crash of the SR.A/1 was due to floating debris that it hit in the river it was landing. an issues that propeller seaplanes also have.

The Martin P6M SeaMaster was a good design, though suffered the budget axe under political/military logic of the time, much like the XB-70 did.
Though, unlike the XB-70, all twelve P6M craft were scrapped, with only one of the tail sections in a museum..

The Beriev A-40 Albatros (also Be-42, NATO reporting name Mermaid) was another Soviet Union design that the Russian Naval Aviation has restarted.
It has, like the short life of the P6M, no reported incidents of mechanical problems/crashes since its first flight in 1986.

Their were rumors that during the wildfires of 2012 & 2013 in the western United States, that Russia was willing to send over a couple Be-200 (based of the A-40) to assist in the fire-fighting efforts & the federal government of the US denied/refused the aid offer.

------------------------------

Ah, I see now, Mr. March, and apologize.

Then just do as Lockheed-Martin did, Valkyrie Driver. go and buy the plans from them.

Doing that, Lockheed-Martin got the cancelled Yak-141 & Yak-43 data to help with the YF-35 project.

Since it was a canceled project from almost two decades ago, it should be 'cheap.'

------------------------------

Well, on that, Nekko Basara, comparing the PZL-230 verses the He 162, you have almost 40 years of technology advancements between.

That is the aeronautical company's mock-up, the Polish Air Force wanted this as the redesign, which pushed out of the budget into cancelation.

Considering only five were built & one crashed (in front of the brass & press), Kelsain. If you seen one, then you were lucky.

Reading the Wikipedia article on the YF-2Y (also known as the YF-7A under the 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system), they thought of attempting to build a submarine aircraft carrier for three of them, though did not get past the 'writing on a napkin' stage due to multiple issues.

With said, though not VF, support technologies to have items like the Auerstadt Submarine Aircraft Carrier did not stop with the Imperial 400 class from the Japanese Navy.

Um, Mr.March & Seto Kaiba, I do not want to sound like a bother, though the Master List of Macross Mecha of the Macross Mecha Manual is lacking all of the Anti-United Nations mecha that you have on the site.

I do not have the books, Seto Kaiba, so I will have to take your word on it.

Though the scale might be off, it seems you & I (mostly) agree that with the up-tick in all technologies do not remove the issues we have.

Faster & harder ballistic rounds can go through tougher armor, stronger frames can be weakened by heavier concussion waves from more potent bombs/explosives & the more powerful turbines also have a higher stress factor on the VFs bulkheads/parts.

--------------------------------------------------

True, Valkyrie Driver, though the XS-4 seems to be based loosely off the F-16, which originally was suppose to be carrier capable, though when General Dynamics could not easily deliver on that, the YF-17 ended up as the F/A-18.
Though, for the VF-17/VF-171, (remember, I have not seen M7 or MF) having a island (colony ship) as your base to operate from makes storage less an issue.

As for the helicopter comment, it was the joke in line of a "screen door on a submarine" for the dorsal intake.

I know of two behind the cockpit engine intake, one is the F-107 & the other is the Boeing Bird of Prey demonstrator; the back of XS-4 looks more like the BoP's intake.

----------------------------------------------------

That could be true, Sildani, on the tail. I personally feel the tail may do better reconfigured like the VF-11 (looking like the F-35's vertical stabilizers), though that is my opinion.

Considering the V.F.-Originals page, off the www.VR-Research.com site, being last updated in 2005, the gun-pod may have been inspired by the YF/VF-19's GU-15.

The missile bays could be in the legs (or elsewhere), though the XS-4 was in their 'Half-Done' area.

With no apparent updates since 2005, I do not think we will either any time soon (if ever).

-------------------------------------------------------

I do like the idea of the slide, Mommar, though I am guessing only half the length could be stowed that way due to the central engine, which would leave enough to possibly to interfere with the arms still.
The fold/flip back near the root of the wing would free up the space for arm movement, though could throw-off the center of gravity due to it being still a solid wing if it can not fold fully back (a reverse of the VF-22's wing storage).

Speaking of the VF-22, I just noticed that it's wings (even when folded) also limit the arms from free movement; though not as bad as the VF-4.

-------------------------------------------------------

If the posts have helped you with Ideas, Valkyrie Driver, then I am glad.

Right now I have multiple designs in my head, though I will have to get programs running in my system to help me bring them to you (namely a scanner & PaintShop Pro). The ideas, with a few lines of description, are (if the numbers are not taken:

• (ca. 2008) YV-43 is a VTOL VF (based loosely on the proposed Yak-43) with duel-fold wings (like the SV-51) with main powered by a single modified Kuznetsov NK-32 engine (cruise; 137 kN, w/afterburner; 245 kN) & a lift/vernier RKBM RD-41 turbines (41.7 kN),
  Transformation mechanics for the main body similar to the VF-22, with the wings & vernier turbine like the SV-51.
  
• (ca. 2035) VA-8 Harrier III is a single main turbine VA/VF design to be a more cost effective alternative to the VF-11 while utilizing some of the proposed AVF technologies such as Active Stealth, trans-orbital capable & the experimental (in 2035-2040) fold booster.
  One needs to remember, most Attacker aircraft go in with ordnance that they deliver & get out, they are not intended to 'dogfight' any.
  This is my VF concept of the idea that Valkyrie Driver & I seem to share based on a F-35 with VF-22 style transformation.
  
• (ca. 2055+) YF-26 Kestrel II is a single main engine VF with VG wings (similar to the VF-25) designed to be an alternative to the YF-24 Evolution for (frontier worlds/colony fleets), There are three design differences;
  • YF-24A which has the specifications for an improved version of the IVCS that was trialed in the YF-21
  • YF-24B that has an additional small reactor/turbine for extended fighter-mode VTOL operations and full time use of the PBS over its superstructure. A tell-tale sign of this variant is that the small turbine is moved externally from the main airframe in battriod-mode (like the SV-51).
  • YF-24C attempts to combine the aspects of both by utilizing the ISC of the YF-24 & a smaller main turbine. This has been the least successful variant of the program due to power consumption, space limitations & issues with ISC (read http://macross.anime.net/wiki/YF-24)
• (ca. 2060+) YF-33 is a triple turbine prototype to allow dissimilar actions of the YF-29 at a lower development/production cost.
  Fighter-mode airframe base is envisioned as a cross between the Lockheed CL-1200/X-27 & EWR VJ-101.
  
• (ca. 2060+) XB-7 is a four (might end up more) engine VB platform that utilizes many existing technologies in new ways.
  A SF-5G is a manned/drone unit that acts as a parasitic fighter to the XB-7, and is also the heavy quantum cannon for said (like the Macross cannon sip is to the New Macross Carrier class)

Tangent: If I can get them drawn out, though, would they go here or in the Fan-Art Topics?

-----------------------------------------------

Since we are talking technologies for VF I thought it might be note some things for the Macross continuum for this year;

1. Isamu Alva Dyson was born 27 March
2. VF-1 production will end.
3. Full production of the VF-5 (which we have yet to see) begins

I agree with that, Seto Kaiba. considering the PAK FA first flew two years after MF was released, though the YF-.

The full operations version of the T-50 (according to Wikipedia) is suppose to be out by Christmas 2016!

____________________________________________________

The YF-24 Evolution, to me, originally looked like a VF-25 'reverted' back towards a SW-XA1 out of the VF-Experimental articles you spoke of.

Which goes back to me seeing the non-cannon work (like the VF-Experimental) of Kawamori being his proof-of-concept testing area that you never know what may spring up of older ideas or concepts for future Macross projects.

Like you said the SW-XAII could have got its final rendering as the YF-29 (with a YF-29 in SW-XAII colors in the VFMF; VF-25. I believe)

____________________________________________________

As someone said in another Topic thread, Isamu Alva Dyson was born on the 27 March 2015.

In a technological notes for this year in the Macross continuum; the VF-1 production will cease, and the mass production of the VF-5 (which we never see) begins.

Considering the specification inspiration of the VF-5 are suppose to be off the YF-2Y Sea Dart.

____________________________________________________

Very out there Tangent: Makes me wonder if Kawamori & others that have worked on Macross projects might be getting/giving inspiration to a parallel dimension via a small/slight spiritia/fold-wave resonance... just an out there thought about any/all 'fictional' story/worlds....

Was attempting to use BBCode there, Valkyrie Driver, and for some reason it would not do the link option & I choose not to edit it back in.

The XS-4 is in the site's 'VF-Original' area, under 'Half Done' designs

_____________________________________________

From the translation (via translate.google.com) it seems to be a design utilizing the speed of three engines to overwhelm base defenses and take out radar and anti-aircraft systems. Also the three turbines may allow orbital operations.

From the image; I can see the shield is also the guns storage mount, the gun-pod has a clip-based reloading system and (assumed) spare clips are behind the shield. No noticeable missile bays (though the internal ones on the VF-19 & VF-11C/MAXL are not noticeable either).

I feel this is based of the VF-1 frame, for obvious reasons, though it did not take the option that Kawamori did with the VF-3000.

The spine/back of the VF being one part should facilitate the stresses of a third turbine easily, giving the unit the additional thrust without the need to make all new parts (if using VF-1/X surplus parts) for the frame.

The legs are free open for the conventional/confirmative Booster parts, while the back could possibly place a variety of FAST/Super packs there.

This is what I consider Soviet/Russian engineering, take something that is good and find a way to make it better without taking unneeded resources to make it so.

It has a solid fighter & GERWALK configurations, though the battriod is were I have questions. If I was reviewing this as a potential AVF design, I would not be enthused about is the wing seem to be a solid/fixed placement which would limit arm movement in battriod mode. The large single vertical stabilizer seems to also be a solid/fixed placement, which again could (and most likely would) cause issues in battriod mode.

I feel some pilots may not like the intake being right behind them (Eject and have a chance of getting sucked into a turbine? That is like putting a vertical launch ejector seat in a helicopter).

I know this has mostly been covered, though some physics still are adhered to in Macross.

I think sketchley pointed out over in the SDF-3 topic that overtechnology materials are nearly 10 time stronger than their conventional counterparts.

Now, with that said, 10 time the thickness/strenght of aircraft grade aluminum skin is most likely going to get punched through like tin-fold by a 30+mm round.

That also said, the frames might be stronger, though the engines are also putting out that much more force in thrust.

--------------- Slightly Back to Topic ---------------

Since we have been talking about the F-16XL so much, and I think more than once the subject of multiple turbines has also been broached; I found this over at the VF-Research.com site, titled R5-XS-4.

Sorry if it is large. first time trying image posting.

Well this posting is how life seems to follow art, for MF aired in 2008 that showed us the YF-24 Evolution.
I believe that Kawamori-san also expressed that he did not want to base the fighter-mode off of existing airframes.

First flight of the Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA aircraft was in 2010 as a pre-production model (like the VF-0 was of the VF-1)

(If you can see thumbnails that will help)

Though it maybe happen-stance that the T-50 seems to have elements of both the YF-22 & YF-23 ATF candidates, though the prolife also seems like the YF-24 as well.

If Kawamori wanted to predict the future, I would say he was darn close!

Um, Valkyrie Driver, Andras did stat earlier that they were roughly the same physical size, with the F135 being physical lighter.

I may have to side with Sildani on the coolant lines, and the size difference of the two may not be enough to compensate for said if needed.

And, Andras, the F110 dry-thurst is a little a little over 17,000 lbf...

So, the F110-GE-100 (used in the F-16XL Unit 2) produces a dry-thrust of 17,100 lbf (76.3 kN) & with afterburner is 28,900 lbf (125 kn)

And the F135-PW-100 (in the F-35A Lightening II) has a dry-thrust of 28,000 lbf (124.6 kN) & using afterburner are 43,000 lbf (191.35 kN)

With these facts, the F135-PW-100 produces all most the same amount of thrust at full throttle, that the F110-GE-100 does with afterburners.

So, Andras, do you still think that putting any of the F135 series into a F-16XL is possible without redesigning the airframe to handle that torque?

They where originally going to make both the F-22 & F-35 without afterburner because they can super-cruse, many pilots voiced that could be disadvantageous to them in some situations. the planners left the option for afterburners in.

Um, Andras, the thrust-to-weigh ratio of the General Electric F110-GE-132 (largest of the series) is only 7.9.

That is weak compared to the 11.467 produced by the Pratt & Whitney F135 turbine.

Without reinforcements in the frame (or redoing the bulkhead designs for a new unit), the F-16XL would most likely suffer frame fatigue/failure.

With this, I can now fully understand what Seto Kaiba has been repeatedly saying with the VF-11.

The VF-11B's FF-2025G output is lower (at a 6.33 ratio), than the VF-11MAXL's FF-2099A (with a 10.51 ratio), & the rough difference of 0.9 ratio between the VF-1S & VF-1X had it needing factory reinforcements.

If I have seemed bull-headed to sticking to my view until I seen other evidence to disprove the facts that I base my opinions on, I apologized only for my ignorance until I have learned better.

For there should be tolerance of ignorance, though there is no excuse for arrogance & stupidity.

Andras, on 28 March 2015 - 21:10, said:

The VF-1 Super booster packs on one the DVD covers do have tiny wings that might be sensors of some kind.

The other interesting thing about that cover is the 4 barrel gatling carried in hand or under the wing, in addition to the GU-11 pod.

Response:

Cover art, got to love/hate it. The fin/wings on the FAST packs might have been in the original concept, though streamlining for animation had it dropped.
With the addition of the four barrel Gatling, it could be a predecessor-design for the SDP-1 Stampede.

I do not place much stock in concept/cover art, considering the LucasArts (now Disney) franchise of Start Wars. Episode six was originally going to be called Revenge of the Jedi, and some drafts of the original scripts & art for episode four had the character that developed into Luke as a girl.

Also, as everyone believed the artist renditions of the F-19, and the actual F/B-117 was nothing like it.

_______________________________

sketchley, on 28 March 2015 - said:

It is - though the proper name is: VEFR-1 "Funny Chinese" (VFMF refers to it as the VF-1G, though both cases, it predates the introduction of the VE-1)

It appears in SDFM, and gets as much screen time as the GBP-1S "Jotun"

Response:

I see, & thank you.

I wonder if the wings lost the ability to use hard-points, for I thought it was learned before the 80's that ASW/EW craft in combat scenarios need weapons. I know the profile says armaments are none.

Do you play based off the Palladium Books Robotech RPG series? The site you gave has good information, though also in game jargon formatted as such.

A question that I was asked; since the VF-0 got SWAG armor & active stealth, do all VF get those systems?

_______________________________

Well, charger69, your FAST/Super pack theory seems sound with a unit like the VF-11D Thunder Focus (which uses special equipment packs to follow the AVF racers in the Unlimited class)

Although, the introduction of the first FAST packs were on the VF-1 Super/Strike Valkyrie (the VF-0 Angel was more a on site kitbashing for the situation) and there was no competition/keeping-up-with other VF units. Like the FAST packs for the F-15, the Super Valkyrie equipment was to expand performance for a given situation that would not be needed otherwise.

I believe an earlier dialog between JBO & Mr. March discussed this with the VF-1 being a good general frame, though needed the GPS-1 to optimized for ground work & FAST packs doing simular for space combat.

I have to agree with Valkyrie Driver & Sildani on this.

I use to follow air-races, and placing a higher performance (& usually larger) engine into the frame was problematic at best. Since this may have lead to some of the crashes/failures, a standardization of equipment via regulations/rules was emplaced for safety.

With waiting for the development of an engine that has both the power & size you want, you still most likely need to reinforce the frame to handle the stresses that it places on, Besides Sildani's real life example with IAF Mirage III, there are three examples of this are in Macross R;

• VF-1++; To facilitated the ELA3000 turbines, the leg structure had to be cut/rebuilt/reinforced to handle the 630 kN output & the same was needed for the maneuvering verniers for said unit (why I feel this unit is a FUBAR version of a VF-1). That is major uptick compared to the 294 kN of the FF-2079J in the VF-1X, & massive overkill to the FF-2001D's 245 kN in the VF-1S.
  
• VF-0kai Zeak; The FF-3001A with 1,620 kN massively outstrip the 149 kN of the EGF-127 (which was a conventional turbine). The mix-build of lighter/stronger airframe (believe I read it was reduce to 20% of the original weight, though could be wrong) with the FF-3001A (which I feel are no bigger than the EGF-127, though only took 50 years to make) is why the VF-0kai looks so close to the original frame, though I would call it a new model based off an old one.
  
• VF-9E Cutlass; I feel the issues for this (mid-air explosions) were due to manufacturing flaws, The frame was originally designed to handle the FF-2019C with its 192 kN of thrust-output, not the 620 kN that is produced by the FF-2450C turbines. With the artwork of the VF-9 compared to the photos of the VF-9E (Macross R model) I am assuming the two turbine are similar in size (no bulging legs). So then (with logic that lacks many facts), the issue with the system has to be internal because of an oversight in the update/upgrade process (not all the turbines needs are met in the frame & was considered 'acceptable' for production). The result was the production & subsequent discontinuing of the E-series.

I can see your point, in part, Nekko Basara.

The only FAST packs that seem to full have Fuel And Sensor Tactical abilities are the ones off the VE-1 ELINT Seeker, VT-1 Super Ostrich & the VF-11C Super Thunderbolt "Radome." All others (like the RVF-25, RVF-171 & the VF-17 with a Radome attachment) are dedicated AEW/EW platforms. and at least are armed (same can not be said for the VF-1E Funny Chinese [i do not believe that one is cannon] & Reguld Tactical Scout Battle Pod)

Tangent; Has anyone noticed that the VE-1 minus the FAST packs looks a lot like the VT-1C?

_______________________________

That is interesting to note there, Mr. March. If your reading is true, then the speculation of Valkyrie Driver is legit on the added systems came with their own software. Which, I feel, then would make FAST packs very big Fire-&-Forget systems. That is in reference to a Singer missile system

--------------- Back to Topic ---------------

I am not going in any particular order on the matter of dedicated Drone units. heavy thumbnails in order of the unit being named.

In SDFMacross we are introduced to the QF-3000, which to me looks like a M2-F3 or a lot of the lifting-body experimental-crafts from the 1950's-70's,

This influence, I feel, continued into the X-9/QF-4000/AIV7/AIV-9 airframe though mostly from the X-23 PRIME & X-24C/L301.

I can see where Valkyrie Driver has the opinion that the QF-2200D-A maybe based off the Boeing Bird of Prey, though I think the X-36 might have had influence too. The X-36 sensor cap (it was unmanned) also looks like the YF-21 canopy...

Then finally the Target Drone from M+ seems to me to be like an updated version of the BGM-34C (Teledyne Ryan Model 259).

The 34s were the drone version of the Modular Design Robot (MDR, like the series four of destroids), & the BGM34C could be outfitted & used as a Target Drone (BQM-34 did that), Recon & Electronic Warfare (AQM-34 handled that chore) & Attack/Multi-mission operations (BGM-34B was set for that).

--------------- On Topic ---------------

I remember that Raptor One thought that the VF-4 Lightening III would be a good AVF update candidate.

With better understanding, I think that would be a good unit to get a reworking & upgrade to AVF standards.

Even though I consider the airframe a FUBAR design, I also said earlier that if it can go orbital and bring the pain, that is all that really counts.

The main reason I think that an update/redesign of the VF-4 is a good idea is for the same reasons I like VF-17 Nightmare & VF-22 Sturmvogel II; that they do not need the gun-pod to fight.

The Active stealth & ability to go orbital would be high on my list of additions, though the redesign would be to have the arms be more articulated.

On the potential of the three modes of upgrading that I said back in Post #216, this one I feel would benefit from the Remanufactured/New Production option with the number of craft out there to do so with

On what I know of real life airframes, and Seto Kaiba has pointed out with many of the candidates so far, it would need a structural redesign for most of the ideas I have to help the Arms & use the systems that it may not even look like the VF-4 anymore.

Tangent: I really wish I could draw better though I may have to take some time & draw out what I think some of the new &/or extreme VF update Ideas here might look like.

--------------- On Topic ---------------

Though old, and not widely known at the time of SDFMacross production, the A-12/D-21 combo l feel (in image) might have been partly the inspiration of the VF-0 Angel package for M-ZERO.

I know the A-12 was used as the launch vehicle only (abandoned after a bad separation that lead to the crash of both drone and mother-ship craft), though I am going off image only.

Which makes me speculate that if they could have kept the 'brain' in the QF-2200D (the only difference I believe between the D-A [drone] & D-B [booster pack] versions), I wonder how much a distraction it would be to enemy units. That is pure speculation due to that (according to the Macross continuum) the configuration is never used again.

wmkjr, on 27 March 2015 - 02:48, said:

As for the Tunny, someone was looking for the YC-14:

Response:

Yeah that was me & that one was the unit I was thinking of, though thought Lockheed (not Boeing) built it. Thank you, wmkjr.

______________________________

David Hingtgen, on 25 March 2015 - 23:30, said:
I've always thought it was much more based on the AN-72:

Response:

I can see why one would have that opinion, David Hingtgen.

The nose/cockpit to me though looks more like the YC-14 & C-130 Hercules than the AN-72 Cheburashka (NATO reporting name: Coaler).

All were being tested/flown during the art development period for SDFM during the late 70's.& very early 80's.

I think the personal transporter version of the An-72 may also have inspired the design for the VC-33 Mom's Kitchen, though the tail of said is a combo H-style & butterfly. http://www.macross2.net/m3/sdfmacross/momskitchen/momskitchen.gif

(Tangent: Really wish I knew why the Flash options don't work for me, would have liked to posted & not linked that)

--------------- Back to Topic ---------------

As brought up with the Cat's Eye, AEW craft are usually a needed part of the military, and only qualification is that it can fly with a radar attachment on it. This is seen with many militaries in the Real world & in Macross with the VE-1 ELINT Seeker, RVF-25, RVF-171 & the radar-dome attachments for the VF-11 boosters & VF-17.

Though, as dedicated craft form the AEW&C position, none have yet matched the EC-22B Disk Sensor. Heck, I see at least three different aircraft in this one!

1. I see a DC 20 in the main airframe, though with a H-style/butterfly tail combo (like seen on the VC-33)
2. I see a standard disk radar-dome on top (like the E-2 Hawkeye & E-3C Sentry) in the latter half of the craft
3. I see a spin ridge communication/radar assembly (not as dramatic as the EMB-145 Eireye's systems) on it front half of the craft

I can see more references to other AEW aircraft sensor-pods. I get the impression that if it moves, the EC-22B will find it. Though that is my opinion of a fictional craft.

Seto Kaiba, on 23 March 2015 - 13:59, said:
I think Kawamori may have found a bit of inspiration WRT powered suits in the novel Starship Troopers, which Studio Nue did a relatively faithful adaption of in '87.

Response:
Remembered a YouTube video (Frontier Troopers), which would seem like a coincidental with your comment.

YouTube: Frontier Troopers -> http://youtu.be/P6H4KjKA3R4

Though this is purely speculation & tangent, maybe the Varja in MF is his (Kawamori's) way of bringing in elements of the Starship Troopers novel to the Macross continuum? Is it ever explained what aggravated the Varja to attack UN Fleets?

_______________________________

Valkyrie Driver, on 25 March 2015 - 11:05, said:
It seems that the way it's explained it would be a PPBS, simply because it protectes in the direction the threat as opposed to providing protection in all direction.

Response:

That is what I thought too, Valkyrie Driver, though I feel better with a second opinion there of.

______________________________

Response to ce25254 post on 25 March 2015 - 16:07:

I agree with Valkyrie Diver, & with the E-2 Hawkeye's size of airframe vs. radar-dome in ratio to that of the ES-11D Cat's Eye, it is a better fit than most other AEW for inspiration.

--------------- Back to Topic ---------------

Okay, looking up other tech that might be in the frame, though finding references for designs that maybe three to four decades old is tough. Though in Thumbnails I think I have a set.

The Lockheed C-130 Hercules & the VC-27 Tunny.

Even though the engine lay-out is more inline with the C-5 Galaxy, the VC-27 being a medium cargo aircraft would place it in the same class as the C-130. I also remember seeing a video of the military attempting to give the Hercules a pair of jet engines (placed above the wing like the Tunny's), though they kept the design as is (can not find images of on the net)

Trivia; A C-130 Hercules did a carrier landing (Look ma, No hook!), and take-off, without the assistance of the USS Forrestal (CV-59) that it used as a runway.

______________________________

EDIT: My appoloies, I do not know what happened to have the post submit sooner than finished or original double post.

Seto Kaiba, on 24 March 2015 - 13:59, said:

It is, however, worth noting than under normal circumstances the pilot would not disembark with his EX-gear.

Response:

Now that I am thinking about that, you are right, though like that gaming pin from earlier I seem to be one "arguing' on the series without actually watching it.

Though I was going to ask if one needed the flight-suit that is usually worn under the EX-gear to operate it, though I believe there is a scene that says, "no," to that. (were Alto & Michal are defending Klan's pod during Macronization (sp?).

--------------- Back to Topic ---------------

Well, I have not found what I was looking for exactly, which was real life tech that could explain a Pin-point Barrier System.

Then, I see a CNN report (via Yahoo! News) May the Force-field be with you: Boeing granted patent for 'shock wave attenuation'

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/23/tech/boeing-shock-wave-attenuation-patent/index.html

Followed by a net search with, Boeing patents laser force field. How does it work? via the Christian Science Monitor.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2015/0324/Boeing-patents-laser-force-field.-How-does-it-work

I am not sure if this might class as a PBS, or start of a Full Barrier System.